3 ms·
I'd love to see more journalistic photos taken by the phone. Anyway, the article mentioned something interesting though: "The trick now is a low-profile, fast,
by anta40 9y ago
I'd love to see more journalistic photos taken by the phone.
Anyway, the article mentioned something interesting though:
"The trick now is a low-profile, fast, connected tool that still allows the user to control image quality. What’s the best photo gear for this new age of real-time, run-and-gun, snap-and-post journalism?"
A smartphone can easily handle those. Image quality wise, probably it won't outclass your new shiny Fuji X or Leica M, but then again the major concern of photojournalism is capturing the "decisive moment" decently, and not about ISO performance or bokeh, for example.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pvaldes 9y agoImage quality is overvalued when everybody use tricks to post-process their images. Behind "allows the user to control image quality" we could have brighter dawns + extra aeroplane (that wasn't here), changing clothes tones to corporate colors, putting more red in blood or more sad in faces, eliminating objects or people, adding either perfect skin or a frown and eye bags in the face of a politic, etc, etc... The "decisive moment" currently is not recorded, is created from scratch. Historic or journalistic value on the other hand is not necessarily about image quality.
- Tanegashima 9y agoNo matter how much you "tweak" your photos, you are not getting the quality of a DSLR. You are not getting the focal distance and zoom of a 70-200.